Essilor & Trivex

[Mikol]

Can some one explain to me , how Essilor being the largest lens manufacturer with superior lens designs , is ignoring the Trivex Material in their product line?

Did they just miss the boat or do they really not want this technology? I had my Essilor rep in today discussing all the negatives of Trivex and she actually had propaganda from essilor against the Trivex technology:(

I do a lot of drill jobs in house and have not had a SINGLE Trivex come back for cracking..........on the other hand I still have Poly jobs coming back for cracks at the drill hole. Yes my drill bits are sharp and I drill poly slowly etc........

I think that this Trivex is outstanding and it is my choice for all RIMLESS jobs in our office. Essilor is losing our business on this one and rep is aware of this situation. We can not understand that Essilor is connected to PPG and Transitions but nothing with the Trivex..........I understand that Essilor is working with Trivex in Canada.

Any one that can shed some light .............thanks in advance



Mikol


:cheers: :cheers:

[Chris Ryser]

Mikol said:
? I had my Essilor rep in today discussing all the negatives of Trivex and she actually had propaganda from essilor against the Trivex technology:(

I have learned many years ago when the competition puts some new product or procedure down as no good, it is most interesting and important to look at that product.
:finger:

[Texas Ranger]

mikol. we rarely do a drill job with anything besides cr-39, which we never have a problem with. frankly, I don't know much about trivex, since we mostly use Varilux and Zeiss lenses. i'm more concerned with the lens design...

[Jeff Trail]

Mikol,

They can come up with any number of reasons but what it amounts to is economics, Essilor has pumped tons of money into developing poly into their line and have a ton of money in poly presses, also it is FAR cheaper to produce poly than it is trivex. So for better or worse you stick with the wagon you tied your horse to :)

Ranger,

Have done my fair share of both products (poly/trivex) and personally from a lab point of view I prefer the trivex.. but as you mentioned if you are not a fan of Hoya designs or Younger than you are not going to want to delve into the PAL market, and they are more expensive than poly's all down the line. If you do get a chance to use it though and you do your drilling inhouse give them a try, they are easier to work with and especially in the weirder RX's high myops etc.,the holes come out a lot crisper (is that a word?):) and less distortion (heat)


As for the reps, I have heard a lot of things out of some of these lens reps mouth that they "claim" was given to them by Essilor and I tend to think that is not exactly true .. I even had a rep showing me the internal distortion in a poly through my scope and telling me how they were told that was a "good thing" like the maltese cross in a hardened glass lens when I asked "that is internal stress and it sets in a pattern down towards the gate" she just kind of looked at me and told me I was not correct..oh well, amazing how little I know about optics and these lens reps keep me in line :)

I really do not try to push any product, per se', I just fill the orders.. but if anyone is doing a ton of drill mounts I would tell them to give trivex a try (in either of the two versions) BEFORE making up their mind one way or the other.

Jeff "always willing to give something new a try" Trail

[Pete Hanlin]

Essilor has chosen not to add Trivex to its material offerings. This in no way implies that Trivex is a poor material- Trivex simply did not fit in with the strategy Essilor has for new lens materials.

If you are having trouble producing quality drill mount work using polycarbonate lenses- and Trivex seems to be solving the problem- then it seems logical to use Trivex. Outside of drill mounts, I personally fail to see the appeal this material has.

Regarding the "propaganda" you mention, if it is from Essilor and it concerns competitive information regarding Trivex, chances are good that it came from my desk.

The piece I recall pointed out the following:

• Trivex is a 1.530 material, polycarbonate is 1.586
• Trivex, like polycarbonate, must be scratch coated to have significant scratch resistance
• If tensile strength for drill mounted jobs is a concern, 1.67 provides a high degree of tensile strength with the added benefit of a thinner profile

[Mikol]

Pete,

Ironically it did but I did not want to point you out in a negative way........;)

thanks for your input

Now when are you guys going to make a Poly Polarized PAL?

We have great need for this combination and you guys are dragging your feet

Sincerely
Mikol
:cheers: :cheers:

[Jeff Trail]

One thing I would like to make SURE that is posted is that Pete says that "propaganda" came from his or across his desk..that the one I mentioned that the rep compared the stress to a maltese cross and was a "good thing" was BEFORE Pete was at the "stern" :) If that information was actually something that essilor passed along to the rep this was done before the "Pete era" (or would you prefer the "Pete regime"?):)
Pete and I have had a few differing points on poly over the years we have "played" here, but that placed aside I just wanted to make sure that he didn't get "credit" for the rep I mentioned. I KNOW he would not ever say or "stamp" anything that silly as something to use as a "technical" argument on the plus column for polycarbonate.


Jeff Trail

[Texas Ranger]

Mikol, i'm pushin' to make the Panamic in a Transitions Polarized, it's likely way in the future, and who knows who'll be able to afford it?

[Pete Hanlin]

Hmmm, somehow I doubt we'll ever see a chapter in the Essilor history books called the "Pete Era" (actually, The Epoch of Pete has a nice ring, though...).
;)

Feel free to call me on the carpet anytime anything I say or write strikes you as inaccurate or unfair- this is the way in which we improve ourselves. The comparative piece you mention was carefully gone over several times in an attempt to state just the facts in manner as fair as possible. If I failed to be fair and accurate in some regard, by all means let me know so I can avoid the mistake in the future.

Jeff is correct, I've never sent out a piece calling internal stress a "good thing," but I have pointed out that lots of mediums that we look through have internal stress- which doesn't seem to bother us.

[LENNY]

Pete!

Are you saying that 1.67 material is better than Trivex?
How about 1.67 V Poly?
And 1.70 versus poly?

Thanks
Lenny

[johnnyoptical]

Right here on our fabulous OptiBoard I found a post regarding the MR-10 high index resin from Seiko. This is said to be very light weight, thinner than Trivex and from all I have been able to get my hands on, just as strong. It surpasses the US safety guidelines by 20 times. I like the idea of trivex, but once you go over a -3.00 rx, they just start to look thick. Now if durability, weight and optics are the prime concern then great. But if you would like thinnest possible, light weight and durability, Seiko 1.67 seems to blow Trivex out of the water. What do you think?

[Robert Martellaro]

Essilor has their own mid-index low density material called Ormex. They probably sold a hundred 1.6/1.59 index for every Ormex sold (and whose fault is that?). With that track record I can't imagine Esslior paying PPG for the use of Trivex even if it was priced the same as poly.

[Pete Hanlin]

Pete! Are you saying that 1.67 material is better than Trivex? How about 1.67 V Poly? And 1.70 versus poly?
"Better" is a very relative term that is dependent upon the application. Is 1.67 "better" than Trivex (or poly) for a patient with a -7.00 Rx who wants lenses that are thin and cosmetically appealing? I believe most of us would agree that it is.

One of the marketed (and actual) characteristics of Trivex is its relatively high tensile strength. This characteristic can make it an appealing choice for drill mount orders, because the holes are unlikely to split.

My points regarding Trivex vs. 1.67 (and poly) are as follows... Point one- 1.67 also has a relatively high tensile strength and gives the patient the added advantage of being thin (Trivex is not inherently thin, the only way to make it thinner is to reduce center thickness). Point two- polycarbonate works exceptionally well in drill mounts (in fact, I don't recall hearing complaints about poly's performance in this area until the emergence of Trivex marketing).

Polycarbonate has a lot of advantages as a material. It is a high index lens, comes in a large range of designs, offers superb impact resistance, is easy to manufacture, and is available at a very reasonable cost. The main drawbacks to poly have been 1.) the recollection of quality issues which existed before the material was refined, and 2.) processing challenges at the laboratory level.

Regarding number one, polycarbonate today is a very high quality product, thanks to the millions of dollars that were invested first by the compact disc industry and later by ophthalmic lens manufacturers. Gone are the black specks, bluish tinge, and other issues that used to plague the material twenty years ago. As for number two, with the modern multi-axial, dry generators out there today, poly can be processed with a very high level of surface quality. It is my firm belief that poly really doesn't pose any peculiar challenges to surfacing, fining, polishing- it merely exposes any quality issues the lab already has. In other words, if you've been running with marginal polish quality or temperature, you might get away with it when you're just polishing CR-39. Polish poly with worn polish or excessive heat, and it shows up really quick. Fortunately, modern labs are running with higher quality processes and equipment than ever before. If a lab's poly is coming out well, almost every other material will as well.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Trivex is better- or worse- than any other product. I'm just encouraging everyone to look at what they expect out of a lens and the benefits the lens provides. If you really find that Trivex works better for your patients, by all means use it. As a Dispensing Optician myself, however, I feel polycarbonate is a proven product that gives me more for my money. Apparently, the market feels the same way, which is why Trivex seems to be getting its sales from CR-39 conversions instead of poly.

[Jeff Trail]

[b]
Point two- polycarbonate works exceptionally well in drill mounts (in fact, I don't recall hearing complaints about poly's performance in this area until the emergence of Trivex marketing).

One small point here, Trivex (in it's two forms) came 10 to 12 month period before "drill" jobs have become so popular and the market place exploded with them :-)

Regarding number one, polycarbonate today is a very high quality product, thanks to the millions of dollars that were invested first by the compact disc industry and later by ophthalmic lens manufacturers. Gone are the black specks, bluish tinge, and other issues that used to plague the material twenty years ago.

I can "partially" agree here, BUT one thing to remember poly is NOT always "poly" as in same type of quality.. being in wholesale and seeing tons of this stuff come across my table I can tell you that there is a WIDE variety in the quality of lens out there even though they may technically all fall under the name of "poly".. a well as you can cast it hot and cold, you have different types of coatings from different companies that also have a direct bearing on how the lens reacts to drilling and cleaning, etc., etc.
I know we tend to talk in sweeping "generalities" I just think we need to be careful.. same as it tends to grade on my last nerve when people talk about "AR coating" as if every coating and coating company is all exactly the same.. I even experience this generality of talking of coatings by optical people as well...
BTW Pete, even though our "processing" has improved the quality of repeated production the breakage in poly is still higher than other products.. most often it is an unforgiving material and in surface scratching before we get it coated.. go into a lab where you have a contamination somewhere and watch everyone pulling their hair out:) Any way we would like to slice it working in poly is more labor intensive than other materials.
I know you are coming from the point of "Essilor" but you still have to consider the average in-house lab out here is not running the same type of equipment you find in a lab say like Avisia so those problems you "left" behind when you worked out here in the "smaller" not as high end equipment still exists and exists predominately in the market.. I know I get enough calls and E-M's in just my "little" part of the optical world that I can attest to that.

Jeff "well Pete you did say mention any points" Trail :)

[Pete Hanlin]

BTW Pete, even though our "processing" has improved the quality of repeated production the breakage in poly is still higher than other products.. most often it is an unforgiving material and in surface scratching before we get it coated.. go into a lab where you have a contamination somewhere and watch everyone pulling their hair out Any way we would like to slice it working in poly is more labor intensive than other materials.
Well, that is sort of my point. Poly magnifies any processing problem that is present in the lab. From a positive standpoint, however, if you create a process that works well for poly, you will have fabulous results with the products that aren't as sensitive to processing flaws.

When we see poly lenses returned for, let's say, "poor back surface quality," I'll usually take a look at some of the other products being run in the lab. Sure enough, there are usually signs on the other products too- its just that the poly brings out the process defects more than other materials.

I'm not saying poly is easy to process. I'm only suggesting that it simply requires better monitoring of process systems and tighter process management- which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I understand where you're coming from. I remember when I first started processing poly- took three months to even get consistent results! I would definitely say, however, that- as we nailed down each of the processing errors that were causing problems with our poly processing- we raised the quality of our other materials as well.

The same thing can be said for drill mounts. Let's face it. If you are having trouble mounting polycarbonate lenses into drill mount frames, you're doing something blatantly wrong in your process. Is it possible to make a poly lens split in a drill mount? Sure, its possible. However, you have to be almost willingly negligent to make it happen (e.g., drill too small a hole, position the hole incorrectly, fail to use the bushing when mounting the lens, etc.).

Honestly speaking, poly is a lot more forgiving in drill mounts than nearly any other material (except, Trivex, perhaps), which is why it is one material labs will warranty drill mounted jobs in. My point? If you want to use Trivex because you really believe its a better material- fine. All this hooey from Trivex lens companies about Trivex being the "only choice" for drill mounts, however is just that- hooey! I mean, come on!

[Jeff Trail]

The same thing can be said for drill mounts. Let's face it. If you are having trouble mounting polycarbonate lenses into drill mount frames, you're doing something blatantly wrong in your process. Is it possible to make a poly lens split in a drill mount? Sure, its possible. However, you have to be almost willingly negligent to make it happen (e.g., drill too small a hole, position the hole incorrectly, fail to use the bushing when mounting the lens, etc.)

You may know that, I may know that and many others, BUT ask the guy out there who uses the same bit (s/he put in about 2 years ago) uses it for everything under the sun from cleaning finger nails to drilling frames...than use that dull nub of a bit on a lens :) THAN blame the lens as being poor quality etc., etc.

Honestly speaking, poly is a lot more forgiving in drill mounts than nearly any other material (except, Trivex, perhaps), which is why it is one material labs will warranty drill mounted jobs in. My point? If you want to use Trivex because you really believe its a better material- fine. All this hooey from Trivex lens companies about Trivex being the "only choice" for drill mounts, however is just that- hooey! I mean, come on!

Anyone that has been around and seen the way marketing works in optics can slice through a lot of it..shoot even you guys (Essilor) have done some of the same things..like when the AO Compact first hit the market..all of a sudden lens companies decided that a LOT of their designs could be fit lower, according to the new marketing, even though it was the SAME exact design that was first marketed to have a minimum fitting hght. of 24 mm ..I think every lens company out there has pulled this little market trick one time or another. Kind of frustrating isn't? :) .. you were on the dispensing side before and probably didn't really follow it as you do now, all the hype and marketing.. we wholesalers have had to put up with it from the get go :)
The easy part is the marketing the hard part is deciding what is hype and what it all means in real time :cheers:


Jeff

[Mikol]

After reading posts as well as speaking with reps on both sides of this issue I am stumped:hammer:

There seems to be the same feelings from about 15 years ago when the big push on Polycarb was happening..at that time it was a safety lens with poor optics but very shatter resistant.

I really think that Essilor should give this product a bit more respect and quit telling me why poly is better!

How about " Trivex is in its infancy and is a good product if it is not oversold" After a -4.00 poly or high index would be a better choice!

How many generations is Transitions on? Will it work to its full potential here in Az. in 115' temps? Is Essilor getting to be the Luxottica of lenses!!!

I am sorry but if you have a great product it will eventually sell itself..............time will tell and If Essilor jumps on the Trivex bandwagon I can not wait to hear why.................


Thanks for the vent

Mikol

:cheers: :cheers:

[Pete Hanlin]

I really think that Essilor should give this product a bit more respect and quit telling me why poly is better!
I certainly don't mean to show any disrespect for Trivex- that was not my intention. My posture on the poly vs. Trivex issue comes from:

• sitting through CE seminars where Trivex is promoted as being the "only" choice for drill mount frames
• reading Vision Monday articles (like the one in the March 24th issue), which claim that Trivex is the "new material of choice" for children's eyewear
• silly marketing demonstrations involving polariscopes, grossly oversized drop balls, etc.

Trivex is an interesting product. I agree that time will tell how successful it is. If you interpreted (or it was presented in such a way) the piece I created to be derogatory to Trivex, it was not created with such an intention in mind. As you have pointed out, no one product is universally "better" than another- it all depends upon the application. Heck, there are still applications where crown glass is probably the "best" product available!

Try everything- keep what works.

[John R]

Mikol said:
I really think that Essilor should give this product a bit more respect and quit telling me why poly is better!
:cheers: :cheers:

DO ford say Chylsers are better ??
No...
Every company has to back their own products. I think the jury is still out on trivex and will be for a long time to come...Just think back to when CR39 first came out. Some companies said greatest thing since sliced bread which ones were they...The ones selling the product.
There is room for both products.
Some of you are knocking essilor for saying poly is better...Well why arnt you knocking Hoya etc for saying the oppersite... Each product has its own merrits.
Come on its just advertising after all...

[EyeManFla]

The overwhelming majority of my progressive three piece mountings are 1.67 Panamic. However, when it came time to do my Neostyle......CR-39 Panamic with Crizal....I'd a done glass if I could find a lab that would do it.......the old unichuck drill has long since faded into history!

[jennifers]

Not to knock Essilor, but HOYA went head to head, product to product with Essilor for our practices in Colorado. After much debate between the two, HOYA won the business of every one of our locations. Phoenix (Trivex) technology was the primary reason for that decision. I have been an optician for 21 years and have noticed one thing....Essilor LOVES marketing and advertising....HOYA LOVES research and development. As for our group, we understand that with drill mounts on the rise, Phoenix (Trivex) is the future. I think we need to remember that it is technology in conjunction with marketing that will save our businesses. I for one believe we need to support other lens manufacturers or we will soon have another Luxottica to contend with.

Riddle me this....why would Essilor promote poly with an ABBE of 29 to 31 when Phoenix has an ABBE of 46??? If you want to know what Essilor had to say in our decision making process, please e-mail me in private. I think you will find it to be very interesting.

Jennifer Smith :)

[Pete Hanlin]

Hi Jennifer,

Knowing the fella who was your local rep, I'm sure he made a solid effort to win your business. As they say, you can't win them all.

Riddle me this....why would Essilor promote poly with an ABBE of 29 to 31 when Phoenix has an ABBE of 46???
One could also ask why someone would promote Trivex with an ABBE of 46 when CR-39 is available with an ABBE of 58? Or, why would Hoya (and every other company- Essilor included- who produces high index lenses) promote materials with abbe's in the mid 30s? Point being, ABBE value is not a major determining factor regarding optical quality (with the exception of sophisticated camera equipment, which still uses glass).

Essilor LOVES marketing and advertising....HOYA LOVES research and development.
Yes, I've seen some of HOYA's marketing pieces that infer that other companies (I wonder to whom they refer?) develop lenses through their marketing department rather than through R&D. You've obviously chosen to go with Hoya after careful research, and truth be known they make some decent products. If Hoya has done the work required to earn your business, and the product ranges and designs work for your practice, no one is going to begrudge them selling you lenses.

As for marketing and advertising, all large companies spend money promoting their lenses. One only needs to take in the sights at a Vision Expo to realize how much money is poured into marketing. I would point out, however, that Essilor spends a very significant portion of its budget on R&D of new products, which includes vast amounts of money spent testing lenses on actual human wearers (in addition to the computer simulations touted by nearly every PAL manufacturer including Hoya).

Finally, although I am no particular fan of marketing (as a techie, I look with skepticism at all marketing claims- that's part of my job), marketing does drive patients into private practices. How many patients walk into a practice and ask for a Hoya lenses by name? How many patients know the name of any other AR other than Crizal? The millions of dollars spent to promote optical products does reap benefits for the average private dispenser.

Anyway, let's just say that we'll keep making lenses and will look forward to the day when there may be the opportunity to win your business back! After all, when everything else is considered, a company rises and falls on the merits of its products- not its marketing (well, unless you're a company named Apple Computers and your competition is someone named Bill Gates ;) ).

P.S.- I'd appreciate hearing what Essilor had to say in the marketing process. If it was erroneous in some way, I'll contact whomever necessary to fix the message. Thanks for the input, my email is listed below.

[John R]

Pete Hanlin said:
How many patients walk into a practice and ask for a Hoya lenses by name?

The only product we ever get asked for by the punter off the street is VARILUX. Just what they mean is they wear varifocals and they assume that all varifocals are VARILUX.

[Pete Hanlin]

Just what they mean is they wear varifocals and they assume that all varifocals are VARILUX.
If only that were so... we're working on it! :D :D :D

[Robert Martellaro]

Pete Hanlin said: One could also ask why someone would promote Trivex with an ABBE of 46 when CR-39 is available with an ABBE of 58?

You just had to ask. :)

The amount of blur off axis is directly related to the abbe, lens power on the meridian of concern, and the distance from the OC. A +2.00 sph +2.50 add PAL wearer will see very little difference in clarity and contrast in the reading zone using mid or high abbe lens. J1 (20/20) will look faded and slightly fuzzy using poly or other low abbe materials. Bump the power to +4.00 add 2.50. Total power at near is now 6.50 with the near zone about 15mm off the OC. J1 with mid abbe lenses will look a bit soft compared to high abbe lenses but with poly J1 becomes blurred and faded. My experience is with spectralite instead of trivex. I will refuse to use cr39 at this power due to the weight (comfort) and fitting cross stability (near vision loss from slippage). I will only use poly if safety is an issue, but will warn the client of near vision loss. Same vision concerns with 1.67 plus it would be about the same weight (or more in plus powers) compared to mid index. 1.6 index is noticably heavier than mid index/abbe lenses and I can not understand why anyone uses it.

Sorry for rambling,

Robert